What motivates employeesaccording to over 40 years of
motivation surveysCarolyn Wiley
University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, Tennessee, USA
Theoretical backgroundThe relationship between people and their work has long attracted psychologistsand other behavioural scientists. Psychologists’ interests, dating back to the earlyyears of the twentieth century, reflect the development of the industrialpsychology and vocational guidance disciplines. Their work dealt with measure-ment of aptitudes and abilities to improve the job-person fit. The study ofmotivation now forms an integral part of both industrial and vocationalpsychology. However, in both fields, concepts like need, motive, goal, incentiveand attitude are appearing with greater frequency than are the concepts ofaptitude, ability and skill (Vroom, 1995, p. 4).
Three assumptions guide contemporary research on human motivation:
(1) Motivation is inferred from a systematic analysis of how personal, task andenvironmental characteristics influence behaviour and job performance.
(2) Motivation is not a fixed trait. It refers to a dynamic internal state result-ing from the influence of personal and situational factors. As such, motiva-tion may change with changes in personal, social or other factors.
(3) Motivation affects behaviour, rather than performance (Nicholson, 1995:p. 330-1). Initiatives designed to enhance job performance by increasingemployee motivation may not be successful if there is a weak linkbetween job performance and an employee’s efforts.
Early management theories, such as Frederick W. Taylor’s Scientific Manage-ment Theory suggested using financial compensation to impel motivation andjob performance. Personality and learning theories in psychology during theearly 1900s led to the development of motivational programmes to enhanceperformance by creating organizational conditions that matched needsatisfaction with on-task efforts. Research on the determinants of choice, fromthe 1940s through the 1960s, led to the development of predictive models ofworkplace behaviours, including turnover (Nicholson, 1995, p. 332).
The rise of behaviourism, emphasized B.F. Skinner’s Operant Learning andReinforcement Theory as a means of altering workplace behaviour. Behaviourmodification techniques were then developed to enhance job performance. Andjob redesign was used to strengthen employee motivation by creating workenvironments that promoted a sense of achievement, the perception of
International Journal of Manpower,Vol. 18 No. 3, 1997, pp. 263-280.
competence, and autonomy. The past two decades have seen tremendous growthin the use of goal setting and management by objectives (MBO) programmes.Thus, modern approaches to motivation may be organized into three relatedclusters (Kanfer, 1992):
Goal/self-regulation frameworks of work motivation emphasize the factors thatinfluence goal striving which focuses on the relationship between goals andwork behaviour (Locke and Latham, 1990). The idea is that goal settingproduces high performance. The basic premiss of goal setting theory is that anemployee’s conscious intentions (goals) are primary determinants of task-related motivation since goals direct their thoughts and actions (Locke, 1968).Results of goal/self-regulation research indicate two critical preconditions of apositive goal-performance relationship: acceptance of the goal assignment andprovisions for performance feedback. More recently, cybernetic control (Lordand Kernan, 1989), resource allocation (Kanfer and Ackerman, 1989), and social-cognitive theories (e.g. Bandura, 1986) have been used to examine more closelyhow particular attributes of a goal, a person and a situation influence goalstriving and performance (Nicholson, 1995, p. 334). These findings suggest thattask demands, self-efficacy, goal commitment, and task orientation areimportant determinants of the effectiveness of goal setting methods (Nicholson,1995, p. 334).
Cognitive choice/decision approaches of work motivation emphasize twodeterminants of choice and action: expectations; and subjective valuations ofthe consequences associated with each alternative. These expectancy value(EV) theories are intended to predict an individual’s choices or decisions. Moreintegrative frameworks have been developed. They incorporate the classicassumptions of EV theories in a broader framework of decision making thatincludes individual differences in personality and other motivational processes,including self-regulation (Nicholson, 1995, p. 332).
Personality-based perspectives of work motivation provide the main supportof the research reported here. Personality-based views emphasize the influenceof enduring personal characteristics as they affect goal choice and striving. Onetype of personality-based work motivation perspective concerns models basedon broad theories of personality, such as Abraham Maslow’s Hierarchy of NeedsTheory. Workplace behaviour is posited to be determined by a person’s currentneed state in certain universal need categories. A second type of personalityperspective considers the influence of a small set of psychological motives onbehaviour and performance. This perspective focuses on the role of individualdifferences in the strength of achievement motives (e.g. Clayton Aldefer’s ERGtheory, discussed below). Individuals with a high need for achievement are morelikely to want and/or select challenging tasks. Other motive theories did notstress individual differences, but rather emphasized the conditions that arouse
What motivatesemployees
265
the motive and its influence on behaviour. For instance, in the Equity Theory –primarily from J. Stacey Adams’ work – the arousal of the justice motive occurswhen an employee perceives an imbalance in his/her inputs and outcomesrelative to others’ (Bowditch and Buono, 1997, p. 89 and 103; Nicholson, 1995: p.333). Subsequently, the employee may engage in behaviours to reduce theperceived inequity.
While these personality-based theories do not necessarily predict motivation orbehaviour, they can provide a basic understanding of what energizes (motivates)individuals. The main strength of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs Theory is the iden-tification of individual needs for the purpose of motivating behaviour. By appeal-ing to an employee’s unfulfilled needs, managers may influence performance.
Alderfer’s ERG Theory is one attempt to modify Maslow’s hierarchy byreducing the number of need categories. Alderfer found only three levels of need:
(1) existence or survival (E);(2) relatedness (R), dealing with social interaction and the external facets of
esteem (recognition and status from others); and(3) growth (G), focusing on the desire to achieve and develop a person’s
potential and the internal facets of ego fulfilment (success and autonomy). David McClelland’s Socially Acquired Needs Theory proposes that people areinfluenced by a need for achievement, power, or affiliation and that the strengthof that particular need will vary according to the situation. Studies have foundthat employees with a high need for achievement will set higher goals than willthose with lower achievement needs.
Another research-based theory is Herzberg’s Motivator-Hygiene Theory.Herzberg’s research suggested that motivation is composed of two largelyunrelated dimensions:
(1) job-related factors which can prevent dissatisfaction, but do not promoteemployees’ growth and development (hygiene); and
(2) job-related factors that encourage growth (motivators).While there has been some support for Herzberg’s thesis, most empiricalstudies refute predictions based on this theory. Needs for salary, recognition andresponsibility, for example, have been shown to operate both as motivators andas hygiene factors (Maidani, 1991).
In general, the theories mentioned here continue to provide the foundation fora significant amount of organization and management development andtraining, including work redesign and career development. These workmotivation theories are a part of the broad field of human motivation study andhave direct implications for individual workplace behaviour. Moreover, they maybe applied to a variety of management practices aimed at motivating employees.
What motivates employees?At some point during their lives, virtually every person works. Working is socommonplace that the question, “What motivates people to work?”, is seldom
InternationalJournal ofManpower18,3
266
asked. We are much more likely to wonder why people climb mountains orcommit suicide than to question the motivational basis of their work (Vroom,1995, pp. 34-5). This article attempts to address this matter by askingemployees “What factors motivate you in your jobs?” Their responses areparticularly applicable to the content motivation theories discussed in theprevious section.
Exploring the attitudes that employees hold concerning factors thatmotivate them to work is important to creating an environment that fostersemployee motivation. By the 1930s, employee attitude surveys were being usedfrequently in business to assess employee morale (Schneider, Ashworth, Higgsand Carr, 1996, p. 695). In 1949, Bellows reported that employee attitude surveysconstituted a useful means for comparing the effectiveness of supervision andas diagnostics for supervisory training. They still are a direct approach tofinding out what employees perceive as job-related motivational factors. Withthe results of surveys presented here, an organization is likely to gaininformation that can be used by managers to improve employee motivation(Kovach, 1980, p. 57) and employee performance.
Past studies focusing on this topic have noted what employees say motivatesthem to do their best work. These studies date back to the 1940s and soughtprimarily answers to the question, “Why do workers work?” If a companyknows what drives employees to work, it is in a better position to stimulatethem to perform well (Kovach, 1987, p. 58).
In most instances, employee performance is determined by three things:
(1) ability;
(2) the work environment; and
(3) motivation (Griffin, 1990, p. 437).
If an employee lacks ability, appropriate training can be employed. If there is anenvironmental problem, altering the environment to promote higher perfor-mance is the key. However, if motivation is the problem, the solution is morecomplex and more challenging. For motivational problems, the best source ofinformation is the employee. Employees must be asked on a regular basis whatsparks and sustains their desire to work. Their responses may lead theemployer to redesign jobs, increase pay, change the working environment, orgive more credit for work done. The key is, however, that managers avoid theassumption that what motivates them, motivates their employees as well(Wessler, 1984, p. 29).
Over 40 years of surveysFor many years researchers administered employee surveys in order to addressthe challenge of employee motivation. One of the first surveys was conducted in1946 (Hersey and Blanchard, 1969, p. 35). It was done by the Labour RelationsInstitute of New York and reported in Foreman Facts. The subjects included
What motivatesemployees
267
industrial employees. Similar surveys were administered in 1980 (Kovach,1980), in 1986 (Kovach, 1987), and in 1992 (reported here).
In 1946, industrial employees were asked to rank ten “job reward” factors interms of personal preference. At the top of the list (see Table I) was (full)appreciation of work done. At the bottom of the list was (tactful) discipline. In1980, 200 employees ranked the same ten items presented in the 1946 survey. Atthe top of the list for employees was interesting work; at the bottom of the listwas tactful discipline. In 1986, Kovach (1987) conducted a similar study of 1,000industrial employees. The list was headed again by interesting work and endedwith sympathetic help with personal problems. The present study highlightsthe importance of good wages. It also confirms the lack of interest in sympa-thetic help with personal problems.
In addition to comparing the employees’ factor rankings, the 1986 surveyanalysed the employees’ responses by subgroups (e.g. age and income). Theunderlying assumption was that the motivational potency of the factors mightvary according to gender, age, income level, job type and/or organizational level(Kovach, 1987, p. 60).
The present study also was designed to explore the factors that motivateemployees in their jobs. It used similar subcategories as those used in Kovach’s1986 survey. Table II indicates the subgroups and the number of respondents foreach (i.e. the valid cases in each subgroup). Table III presents comparisons ofemployee responses from the 1946, 1980, 1986 and 1992 surveys. Table IVpresents subgroup rankings based on the means and makes it possible for therankings for each subgroup to be compared. Finally, Table V provides a summaryof the subgroups reporting higher positive significant differences concerning howimportant each factor is in motivating them to do their best work.
MethodsA list of ten factors developed in the 1946 survey was used to construct a “fac-tors that motivate me” survey in 1992. During 1992 approximately 550 surveyswere administered to persons employed in industries such as retailing, services,manufacturing, insurance, utilities, health care and government agencies. Ofthat number, approximately 460 were usable, including part-time (n = 133) andfull-time (n = 326) employees.
FactorsYears Most important Least important
1946 Appreciation Discipline1980 Interesting work Discipline1986 Interesting work Personal problems1992 Good wages Personal problems
Table I.The most and
least important motivational factors
InternationalJournal ofManpower18,3
268
Factors 1946 1980 1986 1992
Full appreciation of work done 1 2 2 2Feeling of being in on things 2 3 3 9Sympathetic help with personal problems 3 9 10 10Job security 4 4 4 3Good wages 5 5 5 1Interesting work 6 1 1 5Promotion and growth in the
organization 7 6 6 4Personal or company loyalty to employees 8 8 8 6Good working conditions 9 7 7 7
Table III.Comparisons ofemployee responses in1946, 1986 and 1992
Table II.Descriptions of subgroups and the number of respondents
What motivatesemployees
269
Stat
usG
ende
rA
geIn
com
eO
ccup
atio
nFa
ctor
sFT
PTM
F<
2626
-34
35-4
445
-54
55>
12
34
5C1
PlS
PrT
M
Goo
d w
orki
ngco
nditi
ons
76*
87*
77
77
87*
79*
88
76
76
88
Feel
ing
of “
bein
gin
on
thin
gs”
98
78
88
88
78
87
74
892
88
77*
*T
actf
uldi
scip
line
810
99
99
99
109
108
97
910
99
99
App
reci
atio
n fo
rw
ork
done
23
52*
35
22
14
33
41
24
24
22
Pers
onal
loya
ltyto
em
ploy
ees
67*
*6
66
66
56
66
66
66
56
76
6G
ood
wag
es1
11
11
11
12
11
11
51
11
11
1Pr
omot
ion
and
grow
th in
the
orga
niza
tion
44
24
22
44
42
42
33
33
33
43
Sym
path
etic
unde
rsta
ndin
g of
, or
help
, with
per
sona
lpr
oble
ms
109
1010
1010
1010
910
*9*
*10
**10
910
8**
1010
**10
10**
Job
secu
rity
35
33
53
33
33
24
54
42
55
35
Inte
rest
ing
wor
k5
2*4
514
45
65
55
52
25*
7*4*
2*5
4*N
otes
* p
< 0
.01
** p
< 0
.052
Stat
us: F
T =
full-
time;
PT
= p
art-t
ime
Gen
der:
= M
= m
ale;
F =
fem
ale
Inco
me
grou
ps: 1
= <
$14
,999
; 2 =
$15
,000
-24,
999;
3 =
$25
,000
-34,
999;
4 =
$35
,000
-49,
999;
5 =
$50
,000
>O
ccup
atio
ns: C
l = C
leri
cal;
Pl =
Pla
nt; S
= S
ales
; Pr
= P
rofe
ssio
nal;
T =
Tec
hnic
al; M
= M
anag
eria
l
Table IV.The “factors that
motivate me” survey,ranked by
subgroups (1992)
InternationalJournal ofManpower18,3
270
The respondents were asked to rank the survey’s ten factors according to howimportant each is in motivating them, as employees, to do their best work.The most important item was to be ranked 1 and the least important factorwas to be assigned the number 10. All items had to be ranked and no rankcould be used more than once. The respondents also were asked to indicatetheir:
• gender;• current age range; • employment status;• annual income; and• occupational category to facilitate other comparisons.
These demographic data comprised the subgroups.After data were collected on all the factors, descriptive statistics were
obtained. Based on the means for each factor under each subgroup, the relativefactor rankings were determined. Where the array of means ranged from 3.24 to8.66, 3.24 was assigned a rank of 1, and 8.66 was assigned a rank of 10. Table IVpresents the rankings for each factor under each of the subgroups. Tests ofsignificance were conducted where appropriate on the subgroups of full-timeemployees. Such analyses revealed whether there were significant differences inthe factor means in each subgroup.
Subgroups reporting higher positive significance for a factor’s importanceEmployment Occupational
Factors status Gender Age Income category
Full appreciation ofwork done WomenFeelings of “being inon things” ManagersSympathetic help with ≤$14,999 Plant workerspersonal problems $15,000-24,999Job securityGood wagesInteresting work Part-timers Men ProfessionalsPromotion and growthin the organizationPersonal or companyloyalty to employees Full-timersGood workingconditions Part-timers Women ≤$14,999Tactful discipline
Table V.Summary information:subgroups reportingcomparativelyhigher positivesignificant preferencesfor each job factor
What motivatesemployees
271
Comparisons of the 1946, 1980, 1986 and 1992 research surveyson what motivates employeesThe workers surveyed in 1946 came from an environment different from that ofworkers today. By 1946, America had come out of a depression and had just gonethrough a relatively labour-intensive war (Kovach, 1987, p. 59). In the years afterthe Second World War, the information revolution transformed industries; andthe computer industry took on the role that the automobile industry had in the1920s (Chandler, 1992, p. 12).
The leaders in the computer industry were similar to those of earlierindustries, but with one striking difference. Most of them were not, as they hadbeen in the past, entrepreneurs. Instead, they were managerial enterprises –hierarchies of lower, middle and top salaried managerial decision makers(Chandler, 1992, p. 12). Over these years the industries and economies changed,and so did the workers’ values. By 1980 and 1986, after almost 40 years ofrelative prosperity, workers had experienced a significant rise in their livingstandards (Dawson and Dawson, 1991, p. 296; Kovach, 1987, p. 59). By the 1990s,after the acquisitions and mergers of the previous three decades in response tointensified competition (Chandler, 1992, pp. 26-7), it is not surprising that theimportance placed on various motivational factors had changed (see Table III).
In 1946, the top motivator selected by employees revealed their need to beappreciated for work done, whereas in 1980 and 1986 the top concern wasinteresting work. By the 1980s, the focus was on changing the job to make itmore interesting. A national random sample of 845 jobholders by the non-profitPublic Agenda Foundation confirms this. Its findings indicate an impressiveshift in attitudes towards work, from work as a means of survival to work as ameans of enhancing self-development and self-expression (Goddard, 1989, p. 7).The importance of interesting work is also supported by Herzberg’s Motivation-Hygiene Theory. His theory posits that employees are motivated by their owninherent need to succeed at a challenging task. The manager’s job, then, is toprovide opportunities for people to be motivated to achieve. Herzberg’s surveyof US workers clearly indicates that about 80 per cent of the factors in satisfyingjob opportunities come from the intrinsic elements of the job such as achieve-ment, recognition, and the work itself (Herzberg, 1987, p. 29, 30, 32).
The second most important item for employees in 1980 and 1986 was full appre-ciation for work done. Employees are motivated by feedback and recognition forthe work they do. Herein lies the problem. Most employers think they know how toexpress appreciation for a job well done. Yet, research shows that employersseldom acknowledge appreciation for employees’ work; and, when they do, it isdone poorly. More than 80 per cent of supervisors claim they frequently expressappreciation to their subordinates, while less than 20 per cent of the employeesreport that their supervisors express appreciation more than occasionally. Thethree important principles to remember when expressing appreciation are todescribe the desired behaviour in specific terms, to explain why the behaviour washelpful and actually to express thanks (Cherrington, 1992, pp. 52-3).
InternationalJournal ofManpower18,3
272
A careful look at the overall employee rankings for 1980 and 1986 impliesthat organizations were doing an adequate job of satisfying the basic needs oftheir workers. However, they were not doing such a good job of satisfying theirego or self-fulfilment needs (Kovach, 1987, p. 59). Thus, the employees rankedfactors such as interesting work and full appreciation for work done at the topof the list, and good wages and job security near the middle.
The current survey reflects the opposite. It mirrors the increasing stagnationthat employees feel as industry battles to survive in a recession and in the midstof global competition. Clearly the 1990s will provide a significant advantage tothose companies which are able to resolve the paradox between organizationalsize and speed in the marketplace (Devanna and Tichy, 1990, pp. 455-6). Inaddition, the labour cost-cutting strategies of the 1980s left workers verysceptical about satisfying their basic needs, such as wages and job security.They have not recovered from the prevailing activities of that period – hostiletakeovers, global competition, organizational transformations and downsizing.That environment placed many workers in a position of insecurity anduncertainty. In such times, the basic needs may resurface as the most importantfactors (see Table III). Therefore, good wages and job security head the list ofmotivational factors for employees in the 1990s.
Sandwiched between good wages and job security is the employees’ concernabout being appreciated for work done. People need to have feedbackconcerning their work and they need to feel competent. According to theranking of the motivation factors in this survey, employees may consider goodwages to be solid feedback concerning their work as well as a reward for theirability or competence. Rewards, such as wages, that reflect ability may lead togreater intrinsic motivation (Rosenfield et al., 1980). This indicates that it is notnecessarily the reward itself that determines how people respond, but rather thetype of feedback implied by the reward. Thus, extrinsic rewards such as goodpay can increase intrinsic motivation if they are perceived as providinginformation about competence (Wiersma, 1992, p. 102).
Regardless, the respondents to the 1992 survey were more concerned aboutthe extrinsic rewards. Good wages was chosen as the top motivational factor foremployees surveyed during those years. Developing more effective incentiveprogrammes may be part of the solution for those employees (Denton, 1991, p. 46). In Japan, workers receive about 25 per cent of their total pay in the formof flexible bonuses. In the USA, the average is still only 1 per cent (Denton, 1991,p. 46). However, recent survey reports indicate that US workers would like tohave more work incentives. In a survey of 689 US workers, from managers andprofessionals to technicians, artists, salespeople, labourers and clericals, 95 percent of them rank a cash bonus as a meaningful incentive (Lovio-George, 1992,p. 113).
So far we have looked at the collective responses from the 1992 survey. It isimportant also to analyse the responses by subgroups (e.g. age, gender, organiza-tion level and earnings) to determine if there are variations in the larger respon-dent group (Kovach, 1980, p. 58). Not all demographic groups of people place the
What motivatesemployees
273
same importance on each of the ten factors. Individuals at different organizationlevels, with different earning power, may have different motivational values.Hence what motivates individuals at one level of the organization may notmotivate those at another level. This necessitates differentiating by income leveland other demographic factors when analysing attitudes for motivationalpurposes (Kovach, 1980, p. 57).
The 1992 survey results according to subgroupsEmployment statusWhen the responses are analysed according to employment status, significantdifferences are found (see Tables IV and V). A non-parametric test of significanceshowed that the two groups (full-timers and part-timers) were significantlydifferent in the motivational value placed on working conditions, personal loyaltyto employees, and interesting work. Part-timers placed considerably more empha-sis on interesting work and more value on good working conditions. The full-timers placed more value on personal loyalty to employees as a motivationalfactor. Each of these variations was significant at least at the p < 0.05 level.
GenderWhen the responses of men and women were analysed, significant differenceswere found in their motivational preferences (see Table IV). A non-parametrictest of significance revealed that the means – and resulting rankings – of malesand females were statistically different at the p < 0.01 level for workingconditions, appreciation for work done, and interesting work. Women placedgreater importance on appreciation for work done. They also placed moreimportance on good working conditions. The males, on the other hand, placedmore emphasis on interesting work.
Age groupFive age groups were analysed (under 26; 26-34; 35-44; 45-54; and 55 and over)using a one-way ANOVA. The analysis of this subset showed that no twogroups were significantly different at the p < 0.05 level. The rankings of themotivational factors were very similar among this subgroup. For example, allages, except the 55 and over age group, decided on good wages as their firstchoice. Since this difference is not significant, we can generally conclude thatgood pay is an important motivator regardless of age.
IncomeWhen the responses were analysed by annual income, significant differenceswere found in the motivational preferences of employees (see Table IV). Theincome groups were:
• Group 1: <$14,999;• Group 2: $15,000-24,999;• Group 3: $25,000-34,999;
InternationalJournal ofManpower18,3
274
• Group 4: $35,000-49,999; and• Group 5: $50,000>.
A one-way ANOVA revealed that the means and resulting rankings among thedifferent income levels were statistically different at the p < 0.01 and 0.05 levelsfor working conditions and sympathetic understanding of personal problems,respectively.
Two groups, the lower income group (group 1) and the middle-incomers(group 3), differed significantly in the values placed on good physical workingconditions. The middle-incomers considered working conditions to be lessimportant than did the lower income group.
The middle-incomers (group 3) also were significantly different in themotivational value placed on “sympathetic understanding of personal problems”.While the means for group 1, group 2 and group 3 resulted in similar rankings,analysis of the group means revealed significant differences at the p < 0.05 level.According to the means, those with lower incomes (e.g. group 1’s mean of 7.61 andgroup 2’s mean of 7.77) placed more value on understanding of personal problemsthan did those in the middle income group (group 3’s mean was 8.74) .
OccupationA comparison of the six occupational groups (see Table IV) showed significantdifferences on three factors: the feeling of being in on things; interesting work; anda sympathetic understanding of personal problems. The occupational groupsincluded clericals, plant workers, salespersons, professionals, technicians, andmanagers.
Compared to the plant workers, the managers placed considerably moreimportance on the feeling of being in on things. Interesting work was anothervariable for which there were significant differences between the groups. First,the means of the clericals and professionals were significantly different. Theprofessionals valued interesting work much more highly than did the clericalworkers. Second, the means of plant employees and four others in the subgroup(professionals, sales, managers and clericals) were significantly different. Theplant workers placed less value on interesting work than did the other fourgroups.
Sympathetic help with personal problems was the last variable, whichresulted in significant differences among the occupational categories. The twopairs of groups with significantly different means were professionals and plantemployees, and managers and plant employees. The plant employees placedsignificantly more motivational value on help with personal problems than didthe professionals and managers. According to the professionals’ and managers’means and resulting rankings, this variable was the least important in gettingthem to do their best work.
Recommendations for managementThe most striking result of the current survey is the clear indication of moneyand job security as motivators. Today, the economic circumstances of
What motivatesemployees
275
employees are very different from those of earlier years. More than ever before,the standard of living and the employment future of the US worker is injeopardy. Therefore, regardless of employment status, gender, age, income oroccupational category, employees seem to be of one accord. They want whatthey feel is slipping away from them and what they seem to be getting less andless of from their companies: money and job security.
Because employees overall expressed the importance of pay as a motivator,an effective compensation programme is critical. The primary motivating factorthat an effective compensation programme provides is the psychological effecton the individual. It is not the material value of the reward, but the boost in self-esteem that public recognition associated with monetary compensation affords(Dawson and Dawson, 1990, p. 80). This also holds true with the matter of jobsecurity. Security encompasses more than the employees’ financial needs: itrelates to their physical, emotional and familial wellbeing (Leibman andWeinstein, 1990, p. 50). Often, job security is associated with job loss. However,the population of insecure employees is larger than that of those who lose theirjobs. Insecurity is an intrarole transition engendered by changes in a person’sassumptions about self, the organization and the environment. It is not an eventhaving a clear temporal onset and ending. Job insecurity includes concerns overthe loss of a job (employment insecurity) as well as concerns about changing jobcontent (Hartley et al., 1991).
In the early 1980s, organizational downsizing came into prominence.Between one-third to one-half of all medium-size to large firms in the USA andWestern Europe downsized during the 1980s and 1990s. More than 70 per centof senior managers in downsized companies said that morale, trust andproductivity suffered after downsizing, and many other managers indicatedthat productivity deteriorated after downsizing (Cameron, et al., 1993).Ultimately, downsizing highlights the extent to which job security andproductivity are intimately interwoven. Organizational downsizing has had anegative effect on job security and productivity. Job security which affects theemployees’ economic and psychological wellbeing must be properlyincorporated into the company’s compensation programme. This cancontribute positively to overall employee morale and productivity.
Clearly, employees need reassurances about job security, salary raises,promotions and the health and stability of their company. However, they placehigh value also on full appreciation for work done. Articles on “how tomotivate” employees seem to substantiate this. Several articles indicate theimportance of raising employees’ personal and professional self-esteem byrecognizing their contributions (Dawson and Dawson, 1990, p. 79; Levesque1987, p. 37). One survey revealed that 27 percent of workers would quit theirjobs to move to a company known for giving praise and recognition (WSJ, 1989).Blanchard and Johnson (1982) popularized a technique for giving feedback andpraise through their best-selling book The One-Minute Manager. The need tofeel appreciated is deeply ingrained in all employees. Being appreciatedthrough praise helps employees develop a positive self-concept and it meets
InternationalJournal ofManpower18,3
276
their needs for esteem, self-actualization, growth and achievement (Lussier,1997, p. 377). Therefore, employers should show appreciation and giveemployees credit for their work. Praise for a job well done is probably the mostpowerful, yet least costly and most underused, motivation tool.
In most organizations recognition is reserved on the positive side for only avery small minority of super-achievers and on the negative end, for the problememployees. But, the average workers are frequently overlooked. In fact, theseworkers’ efforts – on which the daily operation of the entire business trulydepends – often go unrecognized. Managers must realize that recognition orappreciation for work done can have positive motivational effects for allemployees (Levesque, 1987, p. 36) and that all employees should be recognizedfor the work they do.
Appreciation for work done may be manifested in the company’s growth anddevelopment opportunities. These opportunities can be supported by flexiblescheduling, a promotion-from-within policy, and recognition and rewards forworkers’ improvements and contributions. Flexible work scheduling allowsworkers the freedom to pursue more training or an advanced degree. Acommitment to filling positions from inside the organization provides oppor-tunities for cross-training or promotions. Moreover, recognition and rewards forworkers’ contributions strengthen a company’s reputation for caring about itsemployees’ professional development (Dawson and Dawson, 1990, p. 80).
ConclusionsMotivation is the number one problem facing business today (Watson, 1994, p. 4). Over the past 40 years there have been numerous surveys on whatmotivates employees to do their best work. In order to attain to high levels ofperformance, employers depend on their employees to perform at levels thatpositively affect the bottom line. Thus, they must understand what motivatesthem. Such an understanding is essential to improving productivity and,ultimately, to ensuring the success of the company. For this reason, employeesurveys may be used to gain insight to employees’ job motivation preferences.Often the strongest potential motivators are the things employees value, butlack. If managers adequately and regularly administer such surveys, andappropriately consider their results, companies and employees would gain agreat deal. Perhaps companies would gain a competitive advantage throughmotivated, productive employees and the employees would gain the work-related rewards they value.
The respondents to this survey ranked as the top five factors that motivatethem in their jobs:
(1) good wages;(2) full appreciation for work done;(3) job security;(4) promotion and growth in the organization; and(5) interesting work.
What motivatesemployees
277
These factors reflect the current state of affairs in terms of employee needs andimply that reward systems and job redesign strategies – to name a few – may beused to reinforce and to motivate employees to exhibit productive behaviours.
While controversy persists, pay or good wages is generally valued by allemployees, regardless of gender, occupation, age, income or employment status.Since the 1946 study, good wages continues to be ranked among the top fivefactors that motivate people in their jobs. Its value may best be understood interms of the different needs employees have. With respect to the Hierarchy ofNeeds Theory, pay is an important reward because it may satisfy several of theneeds in the hierarchy. It provides employees with the means to purchase itemswhich satisfy their physiological needs, and it enables them to meet their esteemneeds, since it is one measure of relative worth (Thornburg, 1992, p. 58-61).
Recognition of a job well done or full appreciation for work done is often amongthe top motivators of employee performance (Koch, 1990, p. 72-3; Stuart, 1992, p.102), and involves feedback. Positive feedback follows the principles advocated inReinforcement Theory, which states that behaviour is contingent on reinforcement.Examples of positive reinforcement in this context may include workplace visitsby top executives to high-performance employees, personal handwritten notes ofthanks accompanying paychecks, and telephone calls by top executives toemployees at home (Knippen and Green, 1990, p. 4; Steele, 1992, p. 96-9).
As a result of workforce reductions becoming commonplace in this country,job security is of increasing importance to employees. Employees’ reactions tothe lack of job security varies. Individuals may experience severe psychologicalreactions to job loss and/or the threat of job loss. Low self-esteem, low self-confidence, social isolation, anxiety and powerlessness are examples of possiblepsychological reactions. These reactions extend beyond actual job losers totheir partners and other family members. They also affect the organization. Forexample, not only is work commitment weakened by job insecurity, but,organizational effectiveness can deteriorate as well. Thus, outcomes of jobinsecurity are usually negative. To counteract such outcomes, companies oftenuse reward strategies. Compensation strategies (i.e. severance packages andearly retirement incentives), career development schemes, and outplacementtechniques may accompany workforce reduction efforts. These are intended toarouse positive psychological states that encourage and sustain productive,rather than destructive, behaviour.
Promotion and growth in the organization and interesting work arelongstanding factors that motivate people to do their best work. According toHerzberg’s Motivator-Hygiene Theory, the most successful method ofmotivating is to build challenge and opportunity for achievement into the jobitself. Moreover, McClelland’s Socially Acquired Needs theory suggests thatpeople with high achievement needs are motivated by challenging tasks withclearly attainable objectives, timely feedback and more responsibility forinnovative assignments. Thus, both factors (promotion and growth in theorganization and interesting work) often are addressed through job redesign.The aim of job redesign is to enrich a job so that the employee is more motivatedto do the work. Job redesign tenets may be found in contemporary management
InternationalJournal ofManpower18,3
278
strategies, including employee involvement and empowerment. Workers whoare more involved in their jobs display more work commitment and experiencelower turnover (Jauch and Sekaran, 1978).
Workers who are more involved in job-related decisions and communica-tions, receive reinforcement that they are competent in their jobs, and theyrespond by showing greater involvement and motivation (Sekaran, 1989, p. 349). With regard to empowerment, several factors must be present beforeemployees can feel empowered. They must believe that their work is beingperformed competently and that their work is having a positive impact on thecompany. Also, it is important for employees to feel that they control their ownactions (Thomas and Velthouse, 1990, p. 672-3).
Finally, this article investigated employees’ attitudes concerning theirpreferences among ten “job reward” factors. The results here are supported bynumerous other research studies indicating that monetary compensation,recognition, job security, upward mobility potential, individual growth and asense of accomplishment are all important and enduring factors in a worker’sanalysis of the motivational facets of a job (Dubinsky et al., 1993, pp. 29-31;Efraty and Wolfe, 1988, p. 105). In addition, the employees’ responses to thispresent survey correspond to content theories such as Maslow’s Hierarchy ofNeeds Theory and the Reinforcement Theory. According to the content theories,managers must consider employees’ needs to provide the appropriatemotivation strategies. According to Reinforcement Theory, managers mustunderstand the relationship between behaviours and their consequences inorder to arrange contingencies that reinforce or discourage desirable orundesirable behaviours, respectively.
The results reveal also that the job-related factors that motivate employeeschange over time and may vary significantly across subgroups. Over more than40 years since the first survey, employees’ responses to the same ten factorshave changed. Moreover, the motivational value placed on each factor may varyaccording to employment status, gender, income and occupation.
Additional research should be done to gain a continuous view of whatmotivates people to do their best work. The ability to motivate subordinates iscritical to every manager’s job. Demographic changes in the workplace, as wellas technological advances and globalization, only accentuate the need tocontinue to determine what motivates people to perform well. A motivatedworkforce can make powerful contributions to the profits of a firm. Thus,managers would do well to review this and other articles that examineemployees’ job-related motivation preferences.
References and further readingBandura, A. (1986), Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Bellows, R.M. (1949), Psychology of Personnel in Business and Industry, Prentice-Hall, New York,
NY.Blanchard, K. and Johnson, S., The One-Minute Manager, Morrow, New York, NY, 1982.
What motivatesemployees
279
Bolt, J.F. (1983), “Job security: its time has come”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 61 No. 6,November-December, pp. 115-23.
Bowditch, J.L. and Buono, A.F. (Eds) (1997), A Primer on Organizational Behavior, 4th ed., JohnWiley and Sons, Inc., New York, NY, pp. 85-119.
Cameron, K.S., Freeman, S.J. and Mishra, A.K. (1993), “Downsizing and redesigningorganizations”, in Huber, G.P. and Glick, W.H. (Eds), Organizational Change and Redesign,Oxford University Press, New York, NY, pp. 19-63.
Chandler, A.D. Jr (1992), “Managerial enterprise and competitive capabilities”, Business History,Vol. 34 No. 1, January, pp. 11-41.
Cherrington, D.J. (1992), “Follow-through on award programmes”, HR Magazine, Vol. 37 No. 4,April, pp. 2-55.
Dawson, K.M. and Dawson, S.N. (1990), “How to motivate your employees”, HR Magazine, Vol. 35No. 4, April, pp. 78-80.
Dawson, K.M. and Dawson, S.N. (1991), “The cure for employee malaise – motivation”, ClinicalLaboratory Management Review, Vol. 5 No. 4, July-August, pp. 296-98, 300, 302.
Denton, D.K. (1991), “What’s wrong with these employees?”, Business Horizons, Vol. 34 No. 5,September-October, pp. 45-9.
Devanna, M.A. and Tichy, N. (1990), “Creating the competitive organization of the 21st century: theboundaryless corporation”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 29 No. 4, Winter, pp. 455-71.
Dubinsky, A.J., Jolson, M.A., Michaels, R.E., Kotabe, M. and Lim, C.U. (1993), “Perceptions ofmotivational components: salesmen and saleswomen revisited”, Journal of Personal Sellingand Sales Management, Vol. 13 No. 4, Fall, pp. 25-37.
Efraty, D. and Wolfe, D.M. (1988), “The effect of organizational identification on employee affectiveand performance responses”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 3 No. 1, Fall, pp. 105-12.
Farinelli, J.L. (1992), “Motivating your staff: managers strive to keep morale and productivity highamid economic pressure”, Public Relations Journal, Vol. 48 No. 3, March, pp. 18-20.
Goddard, R.W. (1989), “How to reward the ’80s employee”, Public Management, Vol. 71, April, pp. 7-10.
Griffin, R.W. (1990), Management, 3rd ed., Houghton Mifflin Company, Dallas, TX, p. 437.Gupta, N. and Jenkins, G.D. Jr (1996), “The politics of pay”, Compensation, Vol. 28 No. 2, March/
April, pp. 23-30.Hartley, J.F., Jacobsen, D., Klandermans, B. and van Vuuren, T. (Eds) (1991), Job Insecurity: Coping
with Jobs at Risk, Sage, London.Hersey, P. and Blanchard, K. (1969), Management of Organizational Behaviour, Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp. 34-5.Herzberg, F. (1987), “Workers’ needs: the same around the world”, Industry Week, 21 September,
pp. 29-30, 32.Jauch, L.R. and Sekaran, U. (1978), “Employee orientation and job satisfaction among professional
employees in hospitals”, Journal of Management, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 43-56.Kanfer, R. (1992), “Work motivation: new directions in theory and research”, in Cooper, C.L. and
Robertson, I.T. (Eds), International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 7,Wiley, London, pp. 1-53.
Kanfer, R. and Ackerman, P.L. (1989), “Motivation and cognitive abilities: an integrative/ aptitude-treatment interaction approach to skill acquisition”, Journal of Appl ied Psychology,(Monograph), Vol. 74, pp. 657-90.
Knippen, J.T. and Green, T.B. (1990), “Reinforcing the right behaviour”, Supervisory Management,Vol. 35 No. 4, April, p. 7.
Koch, J. (1990), “Perpetual thanks: its assets”, Personnel Journal, Vol. 69 No. 1, January, pp. 72-3.
InternationalJournal ofManpower18,3
280
Kovach, K.A. (1980), “Why motivational theories don’t work”, SAM Advanced ManagementJournal, Vol. 45 No. 2, Spring, pp. 54-9.
Kovach, K.A. (1987), “What motivates employees? Workers and supervisors give differentanswers”, Business Horizons, Vol. 30 No. 5, September-October, pp. 58-65.
Leibman, M. and Weinstein H.P. (1990), “Money isn’t everything”, HR Magazine, Vol. 35 No. 11,November, pp. 48-51.
Levesque, P. (1987), “Employee motivation: a little recognition goes a long way”, IndustrialManagement, Vol. 11 No. 1, February, pp. 35-7.
Locke, E.A. (1968), “Toward a theory of task motivation and incentives”, OrganizationalBehaviour and Human Performance, Vol. 3, pp. 157-89.
Locke, E.A. and Latham, G.P. (1990), A Theory of Goal Setting and Task Performance, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Lord, R.G. and Kernan, M.C. (1989), “Application of control theory to work settings”, inHerschberger, W.A. (Ed.), Volitional Action, Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, North-Holland, pp. 493-514.
Lovio-George, C. (1992), “What motivates best?”, Sales and Marketing Management, Vol. 144 No. 4,April, pp. 113-14.
Lussier, R.N. (1997), Management, South-Western College Publishing, Cincinnati, OH.Maidani, E.A. (1991), “Comparative study of Herzberg’s two-factor theory of job satisfaction
among public and private sectors”, Public Personnel Management, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 441-8.Nicholson, N., Schuler, R., Van De Ven, A.H., Cooper, G. and Argyris, C. (Eds) (1995), Encyclopedic
Dictionary of Organizational Behaviour, Blackwell Ltd, Oxford, pp. 330-9.Schneider, B., Ashworth, S.D., Higgs, A.C. and Carr, L. (1996), “Design, validity, and use of
strategically focused employee attitude surveys”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 49, pp. 695-705.Schriesheim, J.F. and Schriesheim, C.A. (1980), “A test of path-goal theory of leadership and some
suggested directions for future research”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 33, pp. 349-70.Sekaran, U. (1989), “Paths to the job satisfaction of bank employees”, Journal of Organizational
Behaviour, Vol. 10 No. 4, October, pp. 347-59.Sherman, A.W. Jr, Bohlander, G.W. and Snell, S.A. (1996), Managing Human Resources, 10th ed.,
South-Western College Publishing, Cincinnati, OH, pp. 502-33.Steele, R.A.(1992), “Awards energize a suggestion programme”, Personnel Journal, Vol. 71 No. 10,
October, pp. 96-9.Stuart, P. (1992), “Fresh ideas energize reward programmes”, Personnel Journal, Vol. 71 No. 1,
January, p. 102.Thomas, K.W. and Velthouse, B.A. (1990), “Cognitive elements of empowerment: an ‘interpretive’
model of intrinsic task motivation”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 666-81.Thornburg, L. (1992), “Pay-for-performance: what should you know?”, HR Magazine, Vol. 37 No.
6, June, pp. 58-61.Vroom, V. (1995), Work and Motivation, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.Watson, T. (1994), “Linking employee motivation and satisfaction to the bottom line”, CMA
Magazine, Vol. 68 No. 3, April, p. 4.Wessler, R.L. (1984), “The psychology of motivation”, Marketing Communications, May, pp. 29-32.Wiersma, U.J. (1992), “The effects of extrinsic rewards in intrinsic motivation: a meta-analysis”,
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 65 No. 2, June, pp. 101-14.Wall Street Journal (1989), “Odds and Ends”, Wall Street Journal, 18 April p. B1.
